*Reads thread*

/facepalm

are you guys serious? :P

No one does.

Do you even know, from a political science perspective, what a "rational actor" is? Provide evidence for your claim that they are not, please.

A "rational actor" doesn't threaten to wipe its neighbor off the face of the earth. A "rational actor" also doesn't let its imaginary sky-fairy dictate its own politics and laws.

First, China has ICCM (Inter-Contential Conventional Missiles) that could strike the US without going ballistic. Second, the US is no where near to self sustaining, espically in oil and petroleum by-products, such as jet fuel. China has strong connections with OPEC, the Middle East, and Africa. Finally, the US cannot afford their military budget without the trillions of Chinese dollars flooding in every year. I'm not saying the US couldn't win a war with China, but the world is much more dependant on the world's number two economy than you seem to allow for.

So mindless rhetoric from toothless leaders is your example, as is domestic law that has nothing to do with international relations and security? What has Iran actually DONE that makes it irrational? And mind you, don't cite policies you simply disagree with. Cite something that is ACTUALLY completely irrational.

Banning women from showing boobs?

That's a perfect example. And that's precisely the reason why that said mindless leader has to remain toothless.

I am not trying to be an ass on this one so no trolling intended, but I do want to know how they could not be considered part of the region. Iran and Pakistan share a border. No major land masses or body of water form that border. If you walked across Iran and Pakistan's border you would never know it except for maybe a check point. I don't know how much closer you can get to being in the same region as Iran.

In 2005, Iran President Ahmadinejad had a conference called "The World Without Zionism." (Something actually done, not just an individual spouting off).

Some irrational quotes include:
"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world."
"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of the war of destiny.
"Israel must be wiped off the map."
"I have a connection to God."
"[Then President Bush] also receives inspiration — but from Satan."

No? Now about the Iranian plot to hire a Mexican gang to blow up a DC restaurant and kill the Saudi ambassador. Such a plot had no relationship between the risk involved to the potential reward, aka irrational.

An irrational leader makes an irrational nation, unless there are checks and balances to said leaders power.

Aren't Pakistan and India both considered part of the far east?

They are both part of the Asian part of the map in my silly atlas.

Your atlas needs updates, I reckon. Iran also is in Asia. So is Israel, actually...

The terms Near East, Middle East, and Far East are Eurocentric stem from the period of 1850-1902 and describe the extends of the Ottoman Empire, the area between 'Arabia and India', and the Hindu Empire and beyond.

Thus speaking, Pakistan and India are Far East, Iran is Middle East, and Israel is Near East. Using modern terms, all four are part of Asia. Describing it as "the region", TAN is correct in saying that Pakistan and India should both be considered regional nuclear powers alongside Israel.

Iran wants to bring the coming of the Mahdi, and to do so would be willing to use nuclear weapons without fear of mutually assured destruction which has deterred use of nuclear weapons thus far in the world.

JERICHO!!!!!

Ford, you would attack your own mother if you had the chance to.

Ford's mother is hot?

Israel will attack Iran.the only question is when.The U.S. will be drawn in.The Jewish population in America would demand it.Anyone who thinks Iran is pursuing nuclear for peaceful purposes is out of touch with reality.If it's going to happen anyway's might as well get it over with.

I just want to say that the assertions that an Israeli attack on Iran without UN approval would be illegal are nonsense. To my knowledge, no nation has surrendered its sovereignty to the UN and therefore the UN cannot condemn acts of war/attacks as being illegal. The UN has no sovereignty and the right to wage/declare war is fundamental to a nation's sovereignty.

The right to wage war/attack other nations in inseperable from a nation's sovereignty. Therefore, countries do not need UN approval to go to war/attack other nations.

Israel, like most nations in the world, is a signatory to the UN Charter. Article 33 states:



Declaring war without UN backing is illegal under international law. Just like citizens of signatory nations can be brought to justice at the International Court. You cannot get a war without all five security council veto votes, and Russia and China would side with Iran. Regardless, Israel is willing to ignore international war, like the US, and wage an illegal war of agression without concern.

I'm not seeing how Article 33 impedes Israel's sovereign right to attack another nation (not judging right or wrong here, just the right to do so).

The US sought peaceful solutions to our conflict with Iraq and they bore nothing. We met our obligations regardless of what other nations choose to believe. The US first sought peaceful, diplomatic solutions. Nothing in that says that we must have UN permission. The UN lacks authority to give permission. They can endorse military action, but not give permission.

Israel, similarly, has supported diplomatic efforts to prevent Iran's nuclear ambitions. Israel rightly believes that those ambitions are direct threat to the existence of their country. Israel indeed has first sought diplomatic measures to solve their problem. They met that obligation. I reiterate, nothing in that says that UN permission is required.

Reading Articles 33-51 of the UN charter, I see nothing which says that they UN must approve of military actions for them to be legal.

Israel attacking Iran would not be illegal because the matters have been brought before the UN time and time again. The charter really only requires one attempt at peacefully resolving disputes. The spirit of the charter says that attempts are made until diplomatic efforts have been exhausted. Iran is nearly at the end of it's diplomatic rope. The US has a bit longer that we can afford to wait than Israel, but Iran is about to hang itself with both Israel and the US.

No, the UN Charter does not only require one half-hearted attempt at peace. We must continue trying by any means available. I don't know how well you read Articles 33-51, but Article 39 outlines that the UN Security Council has the ability to rule on the legality of the war, but has yet not been asked by any UN member nation to do so.

The so called sovereign right to kill citizens of another country does not exist any more than the right to kill domestic citizens abroad. Or do you believe the US government can legally kill Americans outside the US? (http://www.aljazeera.com/.../03/2012398516557461.html)

"do you believe the US government can legally kill Americans outside the US?"

YES WE CAN! It was just taken to court and the answer is YES. If they are shown to be a threat we can kill them. Anwar Al Halaki was an american that we DID KILL. He was targeted and killed and it was found to be legal and fine.

"First, China has ICCM (Inter-Contential Conventional Missiles) that could strike the US without going ballistic"

Have you forgotten how both gulf wars went? The USA has missile deffense systems that can and would shoot their missiles down. Look, we took out almost ALL missiles sent against Israel. Do you not think we could better protect our own coast? Few if any of Chinas conventional missiles would reach our shores.

Maple, god luv ya, but youve been wrong about almost everything youve posted. I do not understand how you can defend one nation when they have publically stated they want to wipe off the map another nation- and why? Because they are Jews. Come on man. Most people think my illegal immigration views make me a racist. I am not. I am against illegal immigration. However, killing people because of their race or religion is never right. How can you defend that? A nation hitting first when the threat is certain is only common sense.

eh... under the UN charter, the rule is:



The exceptions to this rule are:



and:



Summing it up, wars of aggression are illegal.

Under that logic, the UN Treaty is unconstitutional and therefore illegal where the United States is concerned. For the record, where we are concerned, the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States. It is higher then any treaty, including the UN Treaty. If this is your logic, then the UN Treaty is not binding on the US and therefore our actions in Iraq are not subject to UN oversight.



And I'm still not seeing anything which bars Israel attacking Iran. Until the UN becomes a world government, they are not the be all end all. Even then, they wouldn't necessarily be the be all end all.

If you're trying to say that nations are no longer sovereign, then the UN can't exists because treaties are agreements between sovereign nations. In attempting to assert UN sovereignty over the legality of war, you irreparably destroy the sovereignty of the member nations and therefore render the UN null and void.

First, a link explaining more of illegal wars.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...tional-law_b_1324303.html

Second, DH, I am not defending Iran. I have said here that they are irrational and any war of aggression by Iran against Israel would be as illegal a preemptive FS. I believe in peace, not unilateral force. Brute force rarely works and just pushes the problem into the future with additional fodder for anger. The threat from Iran is not certain and could be mostly election rhetoric. That statement also fits Israel.

Third, Iraq did not have intercontinental missiles and the flight path of such cannot be intercepted by current anti-missile technology.

Fourth, the UN does not impinge on national sovereignty. However, it is a framework agreed to by sovereign nations to govern international relations. The UN is mostly toothless and cannot enforce resolutions, but as a signatories, the US, Iran, and Israel, should seek the approval of the international community prior to unilateral force.

Fifth, The US Constitution state:

This does not state that the US claims authority in cases involving another land. It also implies that any international treaty is validated as part of the Constitution. Your "right" to wage war is not impinged, but your right to wage a legal war is contingent on the approval of others.

i don't know why this is even discuseed. It is funded over 95% by the US and over 90% of forces are US troops. Every other country as far as I'm concerned is mostly talk.
If you haven't noticed yet. None of countries we have conflicts with had ever followed any international laws. They don't give a fluff about NATO or the geneva convention. Even our UN forces that formed coalition in to help fight the Iraqi war didn't follow any of the ROE, geneva convention, etc... We're the only country trying to do everything right and we get blamed for everything. Every else is all talk, and when the fluff hits the fan, they don't give a fluff. That is a fact.

The US Constitution is the supreme law of the United States including the right to declare war or otherwise engage in military action. Engaging in war/military actions are rendered legal for a country by following that country's laws. The argument that "the right to wage war is not impinged, but your right to wage a legal war is contingent on the approval of others," is an oxymoron. If it's not a "legal" war then we don't have the right to wage it. If we have the right to wage war regardless of international approval as you assert, then international approval is not needed to make a war legal.

The way that people are interpreting the UN Charter does mean that the UN is assuming sovereignty that it doesn't have and can't have because that is the sovereignty of nations which are required for there to be a United Nations in the first place. No nations, no United Nations. Attempting to assert that wars are only legal with UN approval means that you are asserting that there are no nations and that therefore the UN doesn't exist in the first place to declare war legal or illegal. The right to wage war means that the war is legal, and it is absolutely fundamental to national sovereignty. Without the right to wage war, there is no national sovereignty. Right to means that it is legal.

I can not stand tdyoung- but in this instance i could not agree more. We (US) fight enemy who cut off the head of prisoners and yet when we burn a book they were using to send messages against us with- we are the bad guys? No its all crap. Look, Iran is not complying with the UN. There are sanctions being used against them- they are not working. I hope Israel does what needs to be done because this president will not. He is all bluff. He does not fight to win wars (and i am not saying George W was much better). Letting Iran get the bomb would be dumbest thing ever. It would be like knowing the 911 pilots were training for it and doing noting to stop them. Stupid.


As far and US anti- missile tech, yes we could stop nearly all of Chinas ICCMs. We do have a Star Wars program. We do have tonz of other interceptor missiles. You are foolish if you think we do not.

http://m.youtube.com/...l=US#/watch?v=_qxzZY4JycY

First, tduong, the US pays the maximum rate of 22% of regular operation cost and 27% of peace keeping costs (the minimum for any nation is 0.001%). Try checking your fact before spouting foundless speculations. The US doesn't even pay the most per capita (Luxembourg) or per GDP (Japan). The top 10 governments are: United States 22.00%, Japan 19.47%, Germany 8.66%, United Kingdom 6.13%, France 6.03%, Italy 4.89%, Canada 2.81%, Spain 2.52%, China 2.05%, and Mexico 1.88%. The top 10 contributors pay 76.44 per cent of the regular budget combined.

Second, you just highly insulted all of the US allies, such as Britian and Canada, who fought and died beside you. Please recind your 'fact' for the fallen military personel.

Angel, you are trying to make a paradox out of nothing. The US Constitution is supreme in the USA, including the right of congress to declare war. However, there the US signed the UN Charter as well, which governs international affairs. It's like marijuana clinics in California. The State says 'ya go ahead, you can do that', while the separate authority of the Federal government says 'no, that's bad." It's not quite a fitting analogy as the UN has no ability to enforce it's mandate. There can be a conflict of opinion without affecting soverignity.

DH, I'm not judging the war(s) by saying they are illegal, only that they violate international agreements. Personally, I think two wrongs don't make a right and violence only begets violence. Besides that, I reserve judgement on anyone or anything outside myself. If Israel uses surgical strikes to take out Iranian reactors and science centres, Iran will just continue operations more descretly in reinforced underground bunkers.

I love how people assume the Israeli needs help. And i love how people think that Israel needs the support of the media or US to do this or do that. Its simple. Israel will protect their people. If they see fit to attack Iran, they will. If they see fit to attack Palestine or assassinate Hamas leaders they will. If they feel thats its necessary to attack other Arab nations they will.

Who cares who the aggressors are, who the victims are, who are the big bad villains. At the end of the day Israel will do what it must, to protect its people and country.

At the end of the day, the Palestinians are fighting with rocks and Israel is fighting with M-16's. Good luck to them!

Iran is lucky enough to have an anti semetic president, that wants to follow in the steps of Nazi Germany... good luck to them.

We have a country that can fight back... we won't be taken by surprise like the Holocaust. And we will not be exterminated.

The region has been in conflict for thousands of years, before it was even Israel. There have been Jews, Christians, Muslims living in that small country for thousands of years and it will always be like this.

But i assure everyone, It will always be a Jewish State. No country in this world will be able to change that. You can all speculate and you can all talk hypothetical wars and scenarios...but nothing will ever change.

Dear Angel1, by this reasoning, ALL international treaties are unconstitutional under any country`s legal system, as they will always limit in one way or another what can be done.

The thing about international law is that it is an agreement made between sovereign nations. It isn`t, in that sense, equal to internal law.

Who enforces international law?

See the problem?

Some countries consider it important (it was funny how Blair was bending in weird ways to try to justify in the UK the second Iraq war), others don`t. Either way, we the public still can judge nations by those set of rules and it is why some USA politicians have to be careful with which countries they end up visiting or they might find themselves into a country that DOES take it seriously.

Again as long as the stupid concept of holy land exist, this won't end, Israel was created out of nothing because foreign nations wanted to, (politicians got money out of the deal), is only fair that Israel politicians should try to truthfully achieve a balanced relationship with their neighbours, however they don't do that.

And let's take the neighbours analogy further:

You live in a poor neighbourhood, you fight with your neighbours from time to time, but at the end of the day there is a nice park in with you meet and talk as friendly neighbours.

Then one day someone puts a wall around the park and starts to build a huge house, this house has a pool, a huge yard (that used to be the public park), everything that you wished to have and couldn't, this assholes not only took away the public park, they are also rubbing it in your face, so outraged you go to the city council.

The city council pretty much tells you, they are a family of rich assholes that wanted to live there because their family lived in that land some centuries ago, you start to argue that doesn't make sense until you notice all the members of the council have rolex in their hands and are wearing silk robes.

So now you know they simply bought the concil to give the PUBLIC park to them, something that is against the law...

Still bitter over the park thing, a couple of weeks go on and now you find one of your neighbours on the street in a house made of boxes, when you ask him what happened, he is clearcut, the rich people took his land to make a guest house and make their "property" bigger... Empathise the part when they took it, it wasn't bought, it wasn't legal, they just took it, because he was pissed at them for moving next door and was pretty vocal about it.

How the fluff are you supposed to feel after all that, are you supposed to like them? Everything they have done to this point is a clear fluff you all, with the subtext of "you are next".

Your analysis of the Jews being the black guys among whites in Virginia is wrong, this is not senseless racism, the middle Easter hate for Israel is the result of actions done by the Jews and the international community, not stupid nonsense like Black people being evil because they are different.

Israel needs to quit picking on pepples.

And where did you get those F-16s??? And when those get shot down where will you get more of them??? Ahh. yes, thats right, Israel is so strong because they get all their military equipment from the USA>... I see. Yes your right, you guys can stop anyone from anything and need no one. Good luck with that.

PS. A simple thank you USA would be better next time.

LMAO I was gonna stay out of this but this is just to rich. How do you shoot down an assault rifle?

so, if Israel was an Earth:Empires country, it would be running a bottom feeding strat? lucky that it's not one of those land-fat bottom feeders, eh? they'd be getting missiled and AB'd daily.

You must not be a very good Jew if you think the Holocaust sprung out of no where, Jews had at least a decade of warning with the rise of the Nuremberg Laws.

Hopefully at some point in the future all the god-deluded will come to sense and stop kill each other over the proper way to worship the figment of their imagination.

Pakistan is a country on this world that could turn Israel from a Jewish State into a barren wasteland, and Iran is trying to be. Chernobyl happened over 25 years ago and wasn't intended to prevent human habitation, yet it still delivers a fatal dose of radiation in a few hours.

Limiting what a country can and cannot do is one thing where it does not concern an issue that is inseperable from a nation's sovereignty. By limiting the ways that a country can wage war, you are not limiting their ability to wage war. War or peace is still the exclusive purview of sovereign nations. The sovereignty of nations is the ability to decide:

War or Peace
Laws governing how things are done within the nation.

In the United States, this sovereignty is first granted to the states and then a piece of that sovereignty is granted to the federal governemnt. In order for a piece of the sovereignty granted to the federal government to be granted to the UN, the UN would have to be a world or at least regional government. (And I would argue that the states would have to approve joining a world government.)

The UN best serves its purpose when it limits itself to what it's really suppose to do. The UN is a forum for nations to resolve conflicts peacefully and to seek solutions to common world problems. The UN charter outlines procedures for nations to follow in order to attempt to resolve conflicts peacefully. When working its best, the UN allows nations to feel heard without resorting to rifles and bombs. However, the nations involved in a conflict must be willing to play ball according to the methodology contained within the UN Charter.

Nowhere does the UN Charter specifically state that either the Security Council or the UN as a whole must approve military actions for them to be legal. If the UN Charter had specifically stated this, there would not have been a prayer strong enough for the US Senate to have ratified the treaty. The UN would not exist if war had to be approved by the UN to be legal.

War and peace decisions are the exclusive purview of nations. War is a right of nations (if it were illegal [without approval], then it would not be a right as rights are legal by their very definition). The UN can object and nations have to submit explanations for their actions. The UN can attempt to sanction countries for fighting wars. Objecting, sanctions, making sure that the laws of war are being followed, etc. are well within the purview of the UN. The International Court can even charge signatory nations with war crimes if they use illegal methods to wage their war. However, neither the UN nor the International Court have the authority to prosecute for just waging war.

The UN is too easily hijacked (by Russia/China against the US or the US/UK against Russia) for it to have the power to decide on the legality of war itself.

I'll say it again, the UN Charter does not specifically state the United Nations decides on the legality of war and if it had when it was submitted to the US Senate, then the United States would not have ratified the treaty.

Right or wrong, wise or unwise, the right to go to war or make peace is the exclusive purview of nations. The UN can act as a facilitator to peace or mitigator of war (with the nations' permission), but it doesn't get to decide on legality. War or peace is a right exclusive to nations. Questions on the legality of war are questions of national law. For Japan, it is illegal to fight foreign wars, but only because their constitution declares it illegal. In the US, authorizations to use military force may not be legal, but only because they may not meet the legal requirements of the constitution. A US state cannot legally go to war because the original states determined that war had to be the exclusive purview of all the states as a collective and therefore assigned that right exclusively (in the US Constitution) to the federal government where the states act as a collective.

The legality of war is the test of a nation's laws because each nation has the right to go to war (again, by definition acting on a right is acting legally).

Would you also argue that peace is only legal if the UN approves it? Peace is just the other side of coin containing war. War on one side, peace on the other. You have to treat them the same, so does the UN have to approve peace treaties in order for them to be legal?* Does the UN have to approve peace settlements in order for them to be legal?

*prerecogntion that someone is going to disagree with this premise. I accept that if you prove that then you don't have to treat peace and war the same, but I don't myself claim my premise to be wrong (yeah, kind of obvious or I wouldn't have made the premise in the first place).

Geez that sounds rather like the rhetoric Nazi Germany was spewing fourth before invading poland...

They tried to claim they were simply protecting their people, please dont tell me Israel have extermination camps set up to kill all those Palestinians you capture all the time...

Scode, be serious.

Can you say world war 3?

that'd definitely justify the concerns about anthropogenic climate change...

*isreal nukes iran*

the world: why'd you just do that?

isreal: english isn't first language, we misunderstood. they want nuke, we give them one. where is problem?

*tehran burns*

haha, now there's an idea.

PS, before anyone takes me seriously. I realize that's a horrible idea, that the use of nuclear weapons should be avoided at basically all costs, and that murdering a lot of people for the lousy 10% that lead them is really pretty bad. That being said, my warped sense of humor enjoys Braden's post.

Hey, there is nothing so wrong with Iran that a million B52's carpet bombing the country could not fix.

O'RLY? :)

http://youtu.be/s6ty8bztBKg

Though I have a feeling it will come to someone attacking Iran. In the rhetoric about them being rational actors, It goes to show alot of politicians and newscrews covering politics either slept through political science classes or never took any, nor I would guess any other Social Science Classes. As I would says the Iranian powers are clearly advancing their goals and helping to solidify their power by trying to develop a weapon. The external crisis, clearly helps maintain internal support for the government and weakens the opposition powers, as well as use the external crisis as an exuse to further suppress the opposition.